FOOD RATIONING 

and the WAR 

f."*"; • s.J’uEaai 

? J.-.\ ' V»:J 

FEB 27 1943 

a :vdf 



■Holmes 

A» address by Mr. Elmer Davis on 
December 27, 1942 


PREFACE 


Radio listeners may recall that on Sunday evening, De¬ 
cember 27, 1942, Elmer Davis, Director of the Office of 
War Information, and the Secretary of Agriculture, 
Claude R. Wic\ard, made a special broadcast over the 
four major networks on food in relation to the war. Sec¬ 
retary Wic\ard discussed the food situation as it then 
appeared, and announced plans for rationing, plans which 
are now being put into practice. Mr. Davis devoted his 
share of the broadcast to the more general aspects of the 
problem. The tal\ by Mr. Davis is here reproduced in 
response to numerous requests. 









Hfltm 

,1337 

/* o. 

U na/^ 2 


This is a talk about food 
and its relation to the war 11111 

In a few minutes the Secretary of Agriculture will talk to you; 
he is the official charged with the wartime distribution of our food 
supply. But first I should like to say something as the head of the 
agency whose job is to keep the people informed about what is going 
on. We appreciate the courtesy of the radio networks in giving us 
this time tonight, and we assure you that we would not ask the coun¬ 
try to forego listening to some of its favorite programs if we did not 
have something to talk about that is vitally important to everybody 
in the United States. We all eat food; and whatever sacrifices we 
may have to make to take care of the needs of our fighting men, 
the American people will continue, throughout the war, to be better 
fed than any other nation on earth. What Secretary Wickard and 
I want to talk about is how we can best make sure that after the men 
in the armed forces have been taken care of, the rest of us will all 
go on getting three square meals a day. 

As you know, it was announced today that a new program of ra¬ 
tioning, for canned and dried foods, will go into effect within a few 
weeks. Now, why talk about it so far in advance? Everyone in the 
government who has anything to do with rationing programs is in 
agreement that it would be a good idea not to announce any rationing 
measures until they are ready to be put into operation—if we could 
help it. But the new system of point rationing, which you will find 
explained in tomorrow morning’s newspapers, will require the co¬ 
operation of thousands of wholesalers, hundreds of thousands of re¬ 
tail grocers, and of the million and a half of local OPA volunteers. 
To familiarize them with their parts in the program will take time; 
and in that time, partial and mistaken stories are likely to get around 
as to what is going on and what is intended. So it seemed best to 
tell the people tonight what is intended, and why, even though it is 
not going to be put into operation till some time in February. 

Now it is perfectly true that this interval gives chiselers and hoarders 
a chance to stock up, if they are so inclined—and if they can get 
away with it. But I am confident that the overwhelming majority 
of the American people are patriotic enough, and sensible enough, 
not to try to do that; for it would injure the workings of a system 

1 


2 


FOOD RATIONING AND THE WAR 


which seems, so far as can be seen now, to be the best that can be 
devised, to make sure that our food supply is fairly and evenly 
distributed. 

As you know, Price Administrator Henderson has resigned; and 
some people have seemed to think that a change at the head of the 
Office of Price Administration, which is charged with carrying out 
the rationing program, means a relaxation of rationing. It does 
not. Rationing cannot and will not be relaxed until one of two 
things occurs—either we have won a complete victory; or until the 
men who have most carefully studied this food problem should come 
to the conclusion that there is some better method than rationing for 
using the American food supply as a weapon to win the war. So 
far, nobody has found a better method, or as good a method; for 
the purpose of rationing is to insure that everybody gets his fair 
share, and that the health and strength of the American people are 
maintained. 

Food is a weapon in all wars, but in this one more than usual. The 
enemy has used it as a weapon, negatively—looting the conquered 
peoples of their food supply, and giving back to them just enough to 
keep them alive—indeed not always even that much; hoping to break 
their spirit, and when that endeavor failed, hoping to weaken them 
physically, so that they could make less resistance to their oppressors. 
We are using our food supply as a weapon, positively; so distribut¬ 
ing it that the American army and navy, and the American people, 
will be well nourished; yes, and so that the armies of our allies will 
be kept strong too. 

Fortunately, food is a weapon that we have more of than anybody 
else; but that doesn’t mean that we can afford to waste it. We must 
use it as intelligently and as efficiently as we can to bring about a 
speedier victory. This is not a new idea; in the case of some other 
commodities, the American people have thoroughly accepted it. 
Steel, for instance, is also a weapon of which we have more than 
anybody else; but that doesn’t mean that we waste it, or let anybody 
at all have as much of it as he wants. There are plenty of civilian 
needs for steel; but everybody has accepted the principle that our 
steel production must be controlled and rationed so that it can be an 
effective weapon for winning the war. Now, of course, the two com¬ 
modities are not on the same footing; the civilian need of food is 
more general and more continuous and more urgent than the civilian 
need of steel. But the principle is the same for both weapons— 
namely, how our abundant supply can best be employed to serve the 
interest of all of us, to serve the national interest, whose first demand 
is complete and total victory in a war which we shall all win to¬ 
gether or all lose together. It only makes sense to use our national 
assets in the way that seems most likely to win it as soon as possible. 


FOOD RATIONING AND THE WAR 


3 


But why does the greatest food-producing county in the world 
have to so deal with its food supply that we civilians at home cannot 
get as much of some foods as we want, even though we shall be able 
to get plenty of all foods put together? Well of course the first 
demand on our food supply is that of our armed forces, which are 
constantly increasing in size. We have the best-fed army and navy in 
the world; and I do not believe there is a single person in the United 
States who objects to that. 

Some of our food also goes to our allies; to hear some people 
talk, you would think that most of it is going to our allies. That 
is not so. What goes to our allies is less than what goes to our own 
armed forces; and don’t forget that to some extent, this exchange 
of food works both ways. Some British food, and a great deal of 
Australian food, is supplied by the governments of those countries 
to our troops who are stationed there. The percentage of our pro¬ 
duction which is sent to our allies is greater in some foods than in 
others; that is due to the shipping situation, and Secretary Wickard 
will give you koine details. But the total sent to our allies is less 
than what is supplied to our own armed forces; it is small compared 
to what is left for us at home. 

Nevertheless, there are a few people who don’t seem to understand 
why we send food to our allies at all, if it means that we must do 
with less than usual of something that we happen to like. Well, 
the answer to that one is simple—we are sending food to our allies, 
because they are helping us to win the war. They are not helping 
us to win the war for our sake, any more than we are sending them 
food for their sake. They are fighting, and we are feeding them, to 
win a victory over the common enemy of us all. Because they are 
fighting, our job is that much easier. If the British people had not 
held out single-handed, in the summer and fall of 1940, we might 
by this time be trying to keep the Germans out of New England or 
the West Indies instead of trying to throw them out of Tunis. If 
the British people had not continued to hold out, giving our army 
and navy an advanced base in Europe, we might not have been able 
to undertake an offensive against the Germans at all. As you ail 
know, the British used to import most of their food and some of 
their usual sources of supply have been cut off. It is only simple 
common sense for us to spare some of our food, to help feed the 
British army that is killing Germans whom we won’t have to kill 
and to help feed the British industrial population which is constantly 
turning out more war material that will help to win the war. 

This war can be won only by killing enough Germans to discour¬ 
age the rest of them. Enough Japanese too, but we can leave them 


4 


FOOD RATIONING AND THE WAR 


out of this discussion; since in the Pacific area Ave get food from 
our allies, instead of sending it to them. Now the Russians, so far, 
have killed more Germans than everybody else put together; and 
that is why it makes sense for us to send food to Russia. As you 
know, Russia used to be a great food-producing country, but some of 
its richest farming areas have been occupied. We send food to the 
Russian army, because every German who is killed by a Russian is 
a German whom we won’t have to kill; or, for that matter, a German 
who w 7 ill never have a chance to kill American soldiers. The food 
we send to our allies is a direct contribution to the winning of the 
war—to winning it more quickly and at less cost in American lives. 

So that is Avhy we haven’t as much left as we would like of some 
kinds of food, for the civilian population of the United States. How 
are we going to see that what we have got left—a supply that will 
amply nourish all of us, if it is fairly distributed—how are Ave going 
to see that that supply is fairly passed around? There is no doubt 
that rationing is a nuisance—though not very much of a nuisance 
compared to some of the things that our troops at the front have to 
undergo, to the same end, the winning of the Avar. Still, rationing 
is bothersome; the OPA, which has to handle the rationing programs, 
will never be popular; but they aren’t in there to be popular, they 
are in there to help win the w r ar. If any particular rationing pro¬ 
gram works badly, mistakes will be corrected. But as to the principle 
of rationing, A\ r hat would work better? Some feAv people have talked 
about the good old law of supply and demand. Well, the demand for 
food is universal; the law of supply and demand, in this case, merely 
means balancing the supply of food against the supply of money. 
People with most money would get most to eat; bidding against one 
another, they w T ould push food prices up so high that presently some 
people avouM be getting nothing to eat at all. Not many of us are 
likely to take that proposal seriously. Of course, we have price 
ceilings on many foods; and some people Avould say that Avith that 
safeguard, we could let nature take its course, let everybody buy as 
much as he can get. 

But that gh 7 es an unfair advantage to people who haA 7 e the leisure 
to shop around from store to store, picking up this much here and 
that much there; it gives the chiselers and hoarders a break, to the 
disadvantage both of the busy housewife Avho can’t spend too much 
time marketing, and of the patriotic citizen who doesn’t want to buy 
more than his fair share. Rationing may be a nuisance, but it is the 
best way anybody has yet been able to figure out to make sure that 
what we have is fairly passed around. We have tried it, by a dif¬ 
ferent method, on sugar and coffee—foods of which we are short be¬ 
cause most of the ships that used to bring in sugar and coffee are 
needed now to transport troops and supplies to the fronts overseas. 


FOOD RATIONING AND THE WAR 


5 


Accordingly, OPA was directed to ration sugar and coffee. Most 
people have seen the point in that, and have become reconciled to it as 
something that must be done to help win the war. Now the Secretary 
of Agriculture, whose business it is to decide how much of our food 
supply goes to the fighting men and how much is left us at home, 
has directed OPA to ration certain other foods. They propose to 
do that by this system of point rationing; which, it is believed, will 
serve the interests of the consumer of these commodities better than 
any other method. The whole object of the scheme is to get as even 
a distribution as possible, to make sure that everybody gets what he 
needs. And we can all get that, even if some of us don’t get as much 
of some things as we may want. The program could be wrecked, of 
course, if there were much hoarding; but the hoarder not only cheats 
at the expense of his neighbor, he cheats himself too, in so far as he 
injures the working of an instrument which is designed to help all 
of us to win a common victory. I do not believe there will be much 
hoarding. This country was organized on the principle that if the 
American people understood what was going on, and what had to be 
done in their own best interest, they would do it. That system has 
worked for a hundred and fifty years, and I don’t believe it is going 
to break down now. 

This is a publication about the war. When you 
have finished reading it, please pass it on to 
a neighbor or a friend for further circulation. 


U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1943 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 041 599 986 0 




































































